Originally posted by nickbradley:
Not sure if you understand what peer review is, but his findings are consistent with other time periods. There in his bibliography.
Appearing in a peer-reviewed journal is completely unrelated to if his findings hold across other time periods. He's looking at the full population from 1991-2001. By design he's not relying on any data beyond this time period, meaning no claims can be made to if his findings hold up beyond 1991-2001.
It's cool, but 1) you have to accept his metric for "quality" as meaningful, 2) you have to assume that his findings are true across time periods despite him having no data across other time periods, 3) you have to assume that games started and played are -- save for quality -- independent of draft position*, and 4) you have to be completely agnostic to player position (e.g. from 1991-2001 there is good value in the third round, but is this true of QBs if you need a QB, or Centers if you need a center? There's no way to know.)
*This is the one (#3) that's most questionable to me, by far. I think even calling it questionable is really generous, actually.
Just for fun: Paraag Marathe is on the editorial board for the journal this was published in, which is pretty neat.
Edit: worth saying that while I'm being a little critical, intuitively, I do agree with his takeaway that top picks are overvalued, and that the third round (particularly the top of half of the third round) tends to provide a lot of nice value (e.g. where we tend to see players that are still high quality, but have fallen to this range due to the random chance of injury, being overlooked after the hype machine of the off-season, having strong performance but not being of prototypical size or speed or strength, etc.). The third round is where you find the Frank Gore's (injury), Russell Wilson's (too short), and Terrell Owens' (small school) of the world.
[ Edited by PopeyeJonesing on Mar 17, 2013 at 12:15 PM ]